california imputed knowledge of court filed documents

On remand, the ALJ applied the clear and convincing test and did not adjust its back pay determination. The Fifth Circuit held in the initial petition for review by Ameristar that substantial evidence supported the ARB findings but remanded to the ALJ for the sole reason of considering whether the back-pay should be adjusted in light of the after-acquired evidence. The e-mail also noted that Complainant had already received a few resignations, expected more, and indicated he would support pilots' unemployment claims as well as provide them other support. Two months after Complainant was terminated, the Company discovered an e-mail that complainant had sent out to pilots in which he referred to the Company President as 'Wachmeoffendorfer,' informed them that the schedule he was sending to them to follow was not one of his making, but came from the President, and complainant knew it was inconsistent with the terms offered the pilots at hiring. Litigation followed, including unemployment proceedings and the instant whistleblower reprisal litigation. Shortly thereafter, the VP of Operations recommended to the company's President, Thomas Wachendorfer, that complainant be terminated. The complainant thereafter met with the FAA about these matters. In response, the VP of Operations instructed complainant not to request a new signal for the company's flights from the FAA. The Director brought the complaints to other upper management officials and also raised concerns about the company's practice of sharing another airline's call signal without FAA approval and requiring pilots to confer with company officials before recording maintenance problems in their logbooks. Pilots complained to him that the company engaged in practices violating FAA regulations, including pressuring them to violate duty-time restrictions. The complainant was hired as the Director of Operations.

2004-AIR-11), the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied the appellant company's petition for review objecting to an ARB decision affirming an ALJ decision in an AIR 21 whistleblower retaliation case. 2004-AIR-11)ĪFTER-ACQUIRED E-MAIL INSULTING COMPANY PRESIDENT AND ENCOURAGING RESIGNATION OF PILOTS DOES NOT MEET EMPLOYER'S CLEAR AND CONVINCING BURDEN OF PROOFĬOURT OF APPEALS FOR FIFTH CIRCUIT UPHOLDS ARB RULING THAT CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE BURDEN (§ 42121(B)(2)(B)(IV)) APPLIES TO ANY ISSUE RELATING TO DAMAGES, INCLUDING AFTER-ACQUIRED EVIDENCE, AND NOT MERELY LIABILITYĬOURT OF APPEALS FINDS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD FOR ALJ FINDING THAT E-MAIL DID NOT MEET CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE TEST INASMUCH AS AMERISTAR RELIED ON E-MAIL ALONE WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATORY TESTIMONY, OFFERED 'SHIFTING AND CONTRADICTORY' REASONS FOR ITS TERMINATION DECISION, AND ITS MANAGERS' TESTIMONY HAD ALREADY BEEN COMPLETELY DISCREDITED BY ALJ Federal Court Whistleblower Decisions - 2014Īmeristar Airways, Inc.

California imputed knowledge of court filed documents